Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Perception and Communication

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Improving Disaster Resilience and Mitigation - IT Means and Tools

Abstract

Many risk events whether natural or man-made have potentially devastating effects. For several decades, risk scholars, regulatory agencies and businesses have invested sustained efforts in developing and improving risk communication. Their attention has been focused on a number of risk situations from nuclear reactors [15, 19] to chemical plants [14] and radon [3]. Risk analysis has uncovered general drivers and patterns of communication that can be adapted beyond these distinct sectors. This considerable amount of research [6, 7] has helped to grasp with fundamental questions such as: are people rational or irrational when it comes to catastrophic events? Is there a way to develop sensible communication? And what role does perception play to inform communications? Evidence strongly suggests that effective risk communication is a crucial component of a robust strategy for improving disaster resilience and mitigation. Arguably, the major achievements of risk perception/risk communication have been therefore to.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 14 (2) of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  2. 2.

    Lord Newton has held various ministerial positions under conservative governments: Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (1984–1986), Minister for Health (1986–1988), Minister at the DTI (1988–1989), and Secretary of State for Social Security (1989–1992).

  3. 3.

    Accessed at: http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm

References

  1. Albin C (1993) The role of fairness in negotiation. Negot J 9(3):223–240

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Arvai J, Rivers L III (eds) (2014) Effective risk communication, Earthscan risk in society. Routledge, Oxon/New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bostrom A, Atman CJ, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG (1993) Evaluating risk communications: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, part II 1994. Risk Anal 14:789–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bouder F (2009) A practical guide to public risk communication, the five essentials of good practice. Pamphlet for the risk and regulation advisory council. Department for business, innovation and skills, BIS, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bouder F, Löfstedt R (2010) Health and safety executive – HSE improving health and safety, an analysis of HSE’s risk communication in the 21st century. Research report RR785, HSE books, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bouder F, Löfstedt R (eds) (2014) Risk perception, critical concepts in the social sciences, vol 2. Routledge, Oxon/New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bouder F, Löfstedt R (eds) (2014) Risk communication, critical concepts in the social sciences, vol 3. Routledge, Oxon/New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Breakwell G (2007) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Breyer S (1993) Breaking the vicious circle: towards effective risk regulation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burton I, Kates RW (1964) The perception of natural hazards in resource management. Nat Resour J 3(3):412–441

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1978, 1992) Environment as hazard. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chess C, Salomon KL, Hance BJ (1995) Managing risk communication agency reality: research priorities. Risk Anal 15:128–136

    Google Scholar 

  13. Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova M (1989) Principles and guidelines for improving risk communication. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova M (eds) Effective risk communication. Plenum, New York, pp 3–16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Covello VT, Sandman P, Slovic P (1988) Risk communication, risk statistics, and risk comparison: a manual for plant managers. Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Farmer FR (1967) Siting criteria – a new approach. In: Containment and siting nuclear power plants. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15(2):137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fischhoff B (2012) Risk analysis and human behavior, Earthscan risk in society. Routledge, Oxon/New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fischhoff B, Brewer N, Downs JS (eds) (2011) Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based user’s guide. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/ucm268078.htm

  19. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1983) The ‘public’ vs the ‘experts’: perceived vs. actual disagreement about the risk of nuclear power. In: Covello VT, Flamm J, Rodericks J, Tardiff R (eds) Analysis of actual versus perceived risks. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Flynn JH, Mertz CK, Slovic P (1991) The autumn 1991 Nevada state telephone survey. Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, Carson City

    Google Scholar 

  21. Freman AM (1993) The measurement of environment and resource values: theory and models. Resources for the future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  22. Freudenburg WR, Rosa E (eds) (1984) Public reactions to nuclear power: are there critical masses? Westview/American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gould LC, Gardner GT, DeLucca DR, Tiemann AR, Doob LW, Stolwijk JAJ (1988) Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Graham JD, Wiener JB (1995) Risk versus risk: tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kahneman D, Slovic O, Tversky A (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Kasperson RE (1990) Social realities in high-level radioactive waste management and their policy implications. In: Proceedings, international high-level radioactive waste management conference, vol 1. American Nuclear Society, LaGrange, pp 512–518

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Societal distrust as a factor in sitting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48:161–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk: publics, risk communication and the social amplification of risk, vol 1. Earthscan, London/Sterling

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kasperson RE, Palmlund I (1987) Evaluating risk communication. In: Covello VT, McCallum D, Pavlova M (eds) Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and non government organisations. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leiss W (1989) Prospects and problems in risk communication. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo

    Google Scholar 

  32. Leiss W (1996) Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. In: Kunreuther H, Slovic P (eds) Challenges in risk assessment and risk management. Special Issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol 545. May 1996, pp 84–95

    Google Scholar 

  33. Leiss W (2001) In the chamber of risks: understanding risk controversies. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  34. Leiss W (2014) Learning from failures. In: Arvai J, Rivers L III (eds) Effective risk communication, Earthscan risk in society. Routledge, Oxon/New York, pp 227–291

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leiss W, Chociolko C (1994) Risk and responsibility. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  36. Löfstedt R (1996) Fairness across borders: the Barsebäck nuclear power plant. Risk Health Saf Environ 7:135–144, Spring 1996

    Google Scholar 

  37. Löfstedt RE (2003) Risk communication: pitfalls and promises. Eur Rev 11(03):417–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Löfstedt RE (2005) Risk management in post-trust societies. Palgrave, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Löfstedt R, Bouder F (2014) New transparency policies: risk communication’s doom? In: Arvai J, Rivers L III (eds) Effective risk communication, Earthscan risk in society. Routledge, Oxon/New York, pp 73–90

    Google Scholar 

  40. Löfstedt R, Bouder F, Wardman J, Chakraborty S (2011) The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe. J Risk Res, forthcoming in special issue, 14(4):409–429

    Google Scholar 

  41. Major Incident Investigation Board (MIIB) (2008) The buncefield incident 11 December 2005. The final report of the major incident investigation board. http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/index.htm#final

  42. Mazur A (1981) The dynamics of technical controversy. Communications Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  43. McComas KA (2006) Defining moments in risk communication: 1996–2005. J Health Commun 11:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Morgan GB, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C (2001) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Nealey SM, Melber BD, Ranking WL (1983) Public opinion and nuclear energy. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nealey SM, Hebert JA (1983) Public attitudes towards radioactive waste. In: Walker CA, Gould LC, Woodhouse EJ (eds) Too hot to handle? Social and policy issues in the management of radioactive waste. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 94–111

    Google Scholar 

  47. NRC (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  48. NRC (1989) Improving risk communication. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  49. NRC (1996) Understanding risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  50. OECD (2002) OECD Guidance document on risk communication for chemical risk management. OECD, Paris. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/cb81407367ba51d5c1256c01003521ed/$FILE/JT00129938.PDF

  51. OECD/NEA (2003) The regulator’s evolving role and image in radioactive waste management, lessons learnt within the NEA forum on stakeholder confidence. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pidgeon N (1996) Technocracy, democracy, secrecy and error, accident and design: contemporary debates in risk management. In: Hood C, Jones DKC (eds), University College London Press, London, pp 161–171

    Google Scholar 

  53. Powell D, Leiss W (1997) Mad cows and mothers milk. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  54. Renn O (2005) White paper on risk governance, towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council, Genève

    Google Scholar 

  55. Renn O, Webler RT, Wiedemann P (eds) (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating new models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rosa E, Freudenburg W (1993) The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power: implications for nuclear waste policy. In: Dunlap R, Kraft E, Rosa E (eds) Public reactions to nuclear waste, citizens’ views of repository siting. Duke University Press, Durham/London, pp 32–63

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sky News (2005) Fire rages after blasts at oil depot. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641205711. Accessed 11 Dec 2005

  58. Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, New York, pp 117–152

    Google Scholar 

  59. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13(6):675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Slovic P (1997) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K (eds) Environment, ethics and behavior. The New Lexington Press, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  62. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(4):14–20, 36–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing R, Albers WA Jr (eds) Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? Plenum Press, New York, pp 181–214

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1981) Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications. In: Warner F, Slater DH (eds) The assessment and perception of risk. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  65. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1982) Rating the risks: the structure of expert and lay perceptions. In: Hohenemser C, Kasperson JX (eds) Risk in the technological society, AAAS symposium series. Westview, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  66. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1985) Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kasperson J (eds) Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology. Westview, Boulder, pp 91–125

    Google Scholar 

  67. Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds.) Social theories of risk. Praeger, New York, pp 117–152

    Google Scholar 

  68. Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn J (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and nuclear waste: lessons from Yucca mountain. In: Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds) Public reactions to nuclear waste: citizens views of repository siting. Duke, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  69. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B (1984) Modelling the societal impact of fatal accidents. Manage Sci 30:464–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. White GF (1945) Human adjustment to floods, Department of Geography research paper no. 29. The University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  71. White GF (1961) The choice of use in resource management. Nat Resour J 1:23–40

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology and Society Studies, Maastricht University, Grote Gracht 90-92, Maastricht, SZ 6211, The Netherlands

    Frederic Bouder

Authors
  1. Frederic Bouder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederic Bouder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science and ‘Gheorghe Asachi’ Technical University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania

    Horia-Nicolai Teodorescu

  2. Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies,Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Alan Kirschenbaum

  3. Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chisinau, Moldova

    Svetlana Cojocaru

  4. Department of Global Health and Populati, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Claude Bruderlein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bouder, F. (2014). Risk Perception and Communication. In: Teodorescu, HN., Kirschenbaum, A., Cojocaru, S., Bruderlein, C. (eds) Improving Disaster Resilience and Mitigation - IT Means and Tools. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9136-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9136-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9135-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9136-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation